A federal judge has allowed key claims to proceed in the civil rights lawsuit filed by Rebekah Massie, a Surprise, Arizona, resident who was arrested after criticizing a city attorney’s salary during a city council meeting.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled this week that Massie’s First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Arizona Open Meeting Law claims will move forward into discovery. The lawsuit stems from an August 2024 city council meeting in Surprise, where Massie was removed, arrested, and charged with trespassing after criticizing the pay of a government attorney during public comment. She was later taken to a detention center.
LAWSUIT: With FIRE’s help, an Arizona mom is suing the City of Surprise, AZ., after the mayor ordered her arrest for questioning a pay raise for a city official.
In America, the last thing citizens should fear when they attend public meetings is leaving in handcuffs. pic.twitter.com/ox6EyEiVAW
FIRE said the city did not challenge Massie’s federal constitutional claims in its motion, allowing those claims to proceed. The judge also permitted Massie’s Open Meeting Law claim to move forward, noting that Arizona law places express limits on how government bodies may regulate public comment during meetings.
Several state law claims were dismissed, according to FIRE, after the court determined they were duplicative of the constitutional claims and barred under Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute.
FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said the organization will continue pursuing the case.
“We’re going to continue to fight not only to vindicate Rebekah’s constitutional rights, but to ensure that all Arizonans are free to speak their minds. All of us have the right to criticize our government without being arrested.”
The ruling marks the latest development in a case that has already prompted changes from the City of Surprise.
In September 2024, the Surprise City Council voted to repeal its policy prohibiting criticism of public officials during meetings following public backlash and the filing of the lawsuit. The following month, a judge dismissed the criminal trespassing charge against Massie, calling the government’s suppression of her speech “objectively outrageous.”
According to FIRE, body-camera footage later released showed a Surprise police officer responding to Massie’s complaint that she had been thrown to the ground during her arrest by saying, “That’s what happens when you’re resisting arrest.”
The civil lawsuit against the City of Surprise and individual officials remains ongoing as the case enters the discovery phase.
A year-long Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) battle has revealed over 1,000 pages of emails from the University of Arizona (U of A), exposing coordinated efforts between faculty and pro-Palestine groups to undermine condemnations of the Oct. 7th Hamas attacks on Israel. The documents, obtained through legal threats after an initial denial, detail attempts to soften U of A statements on terrorism and revise an anti-Semitism resolution to prioritize criticism of police responses to pro-Palestine protests.
Brian Anderson, founder of the Saguaro Group and Arizona Capitol Oversight, filed the FOIA request in May 2024 targeting communications post-Oct 7th when Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, and many children. U of A initially refused, forcing Anderson to retain attorneys and threaten litigation, costing thousands of dollars before the June 2025 release. He detailed the ordeal in an X post on November 1, 2025, linking to a 12-page report.
NEW 🚨 After a 1-year #FOIA fight, I have obtained 1,000 pages of internal emails exposing how @UArizona bent over backward for pro-Palestine activists after October 7
Former U of A President Robert C. Robbins condemned the “antisemitic hatred, murder, and atrocity” officially on Oct. 11, 2023, specifically criticizing Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for endorsing the attacks. Faculty backlash was swift. On Oct. 12th, an associate emailed Faculty Senate Chair Leila Hudson, accusing Robbins of “smears” against SJP and coordinating with Jewish Voice for Peace on protests, threatening a Palestine Legal report. Hudson, an associate professor in Middle Eastern and North African Studies, replied supportively and issued a statement on Oct. 13th condemning “illegal violent collective punishment” on Gaza civilians, equating it to Hamas terrorism.
Faculty emails poured in praising Hudson. One cited distress among Saudi, UAE, and Yemeni students. Another called her “courageous,” noting that “Kochs Off Campus” planned to attend a faculty meeting. Hudson privately noted shortening her draft to avoid “comparisons to ISIS tactics,” instead favoring words that would “bring people into dialogue.”
Pro-Palestine activity intensified on campus. On Oct. 26, 2023, the Coalition of Black Students and Allies emailed faculty, calling Oct. 7th a “powerful emblem of Palestinian resistance” against Israeli “apartheid.” Hudson spoke at a Nov. 6 Faculty Senate meeting on the “genocide” in Palestine, sympathizing with protesters against “occupation” and U.S. policy. An interim provost announced a Nov. 9 “Walkout for Palestine,” and United Campus Workers of Arizona issued a Nov. 20 open letter accusing pro-Palestine critics of “retaliation.”
Vandalism incidents included an Oct. 19, 2023, incident in which a swastika and “dirty Jew” graffiti were found on a student’s door, classified as bias-based. Professor Jean-Marc Fellous emailed on Jan. 14, 2024, about a prior swastika in his lab dismissed as “vandalism.” In April 2024, SJP’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” coincided with Passover, flagged as provocative. U of A’s Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi was vandalized that month.
Faculty suspensions followed: Professors Rebecca Lopez and Rebecca Zapien were briefly removed in December 2023 for calling Hamas a “resistance group.” They were reinstated later. Hudson defended them, stressing teaching “causes and motivations of October 7th.”
An anti-Semitism resolution draft by Fellous on April 13, 2024, condemned fraternity vandalism as “virulent antisemitism.” Hudson emailed on May 3 to “adjust” it for “admin/police violence” against protesters. Colleagues protested, with Barry Goldman questioning the omission of violence against Jewish students. Fellous agreed to separate issues, noting “antisemitism and hate crime have nothing to do with police violence.” On May 5, another colleague accused Hudson of withholding the draft and warned of antisemitic implications.
At the May 2024 Faculty Senate meeting, Hudson declined the resolution, referring it to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for “further study.” She reaffirmed rejection of all biases, including those on “gender identity, reproductive status, and sexual orientation.” On Nov. 4, 2024, she reported ongoing feedback collection.
On Dec. 2, 2023, Hudson’s “State of the Faculty” message announced a Campus Climate response team for “incidents not meeting credible threats,” warning against labeling ceasefire calls or anti-Israel views as “pro-Hamas” or “antisemitic.” Law professors Toni Massaro, Tessa Dysart, and Mona Hymel then expressed concern, and distanced themselves with a fourth colleague whose name was redacted, adding, “I don’t think that a person with an understanding of antisemitism drafted or reviewed the part concerning hate speech.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) threatened legal action on Dec. 12, 2023, calling it a “deeply chilling and unlawful” act of “formalized government monitoring of protected speech.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board highlighted the emails on Oct. 30, 2025, noting “anti-Israel and pro-Hamas bias among the faculty and student groups.” Anderson’s X thread amplified the report.
Anderson stated: “It took the University of Arizona an entire year to release these records to me, from my initial FOIA request in May 2024 until the final production in June 2025.” He added, “Multiple attorneys and thousands of dollars in legal fees were required to successfully reverse the university’s unnecessary delay (and, later, its formal denial) of my request, which it did only after a final warning that I would be filing a lawsuit within the next 48 hours. More importantly, its refusal to hand over these records denied students and faculty any semblance of transparency into the mechanics behind what was happening on their own campus—or what has happened in the year since.”
He concluded, “The best-case scenario is that UA succumbed to a culture dominated by over-thinking, whataboutism, and misplaced priorities that allowed hatred to flourish. But its extended fight against transparency suggests a broader institutional failure—one bordering on purposeful evasion of public records laws—with the intention of riding out the storm until Israel and Palestine were out of the news. We deserve better from this public university.”
Charges against Rebekah Massie, the Surprise mother who was arrested while exercising her First Amendment rights at a city council meeting, were tossed out by North Valley Justice Court Judge Gerald Williams last week. As previously reported by AZ Free News, Massie was to be tried for trespassing after she criticized the Surprise City Attorney during a city council meeting. Judge Williams agreed when defense counsel moved that the trespassing charges against Massie be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled, and called the charges “objectively outrageous.”
Massie’s attorney Bret Royle, explained, “Rebekah should never have been detained, let alone criminally charged, for speaking her mind. That’s the kind of thing that happens in tyrannical countries, but should never happen here. No American should face jail time for exercising their freedom of speech, and we’re relieved the court agreed.”
Just one day after hearing from attorneys representing Massie and the city, Judge Williams released a scorching three-page ruling, pointedly noting that the city has since rescinded the policy Massie was arrested under, which prohibited the public from criticizing city officials during council meetings.
He wrote in part, “No branch of any federal, state, or local government in this country should ever attempt to control the content of political speech.” He added, “In this case, the government did so in a manner that was objectively outrageous.”
“The Defendant should not have faced criminal prosecution once for expressing her political views,” Williams added. “The Court agrees that she should never face criminal prosecution, for expressing her political views on that date at that time, again.”
JUSTICE: A judge just THREW OUT the criminal charge against an Arizona mom who was arrested and frog-marched out of a city council meeting for criticizing a city attorney’s pay.
The judge slammed the government’s suppression of her free speech as “objectively outrageous.” pic.twitter.com/G9eAgXaRMt
In the unusual case, Surprise city prosecutors recused themselves, citing a conflict of interest, and Massie’s charges were handled by the City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office. The Phoenix Prosecutors argued that the case should be dismissed without prejudice allowing the city to potentially re-file charges.
In court documents, Royle argued that the charges against Massie should be dismissed with prejudice based on a lack of evidence to support Massie’s arrest to begin with.
“Ms. Massie was not ‘remaining unlawfully’ as she was within her rights to remain in the chamber despite being asked to leave by Mayor Hall and Officer Shernicoff,” Royle told the court. In his ruling, Williams concurred, observing that Massie’s arrest, originating as it did from city council policy, regulated political speech and “would trigger scrutiny,” under constitutional legal analysis.
A lawsuit against the city by Massie, represented by FIRE is ongoing. In a press release from the FIRE, Massie said, “For more than two months I’ve been living with the threat of punishment and jail time — being taken away from my kids, even — for doing nothing more than criticizing the government. Free speech still matters in America, and I can’t tell you what a relief it is to have people on my side standing up for our rights with me.”
FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement, “This is an incredible win for Rebekah and an important message to government bureaucrats around the country that the First Amendment bows to no one. The fight goes on in Rebekah’s lawsuit against the City of Surprise, Mayor Hall, and Officer Schernicoff. We want to make it crystal clear to governments across the United States that brazenly censoring people and betraying the First Amendment comes with a cost.”
As recently reported by AZ Free News, KFYI’s James T. Harris released internal video he obtained of Surprise Police Chief Benny Piña seeming to defend Massie’s arrest, telling officers, “What happened last week in a council meeting resulted in what I think everybody in the world is calling an illegal arrest and a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. That’s clearly not what we’re about, and that’s not what happened.”
In a statement emailed to AZ Free News after Judge William’s ruling, FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said, “The police chief says their conduct exemplifies the ‘mission’ and ‘philosophy’ of the Surprise Police Department. A judge said their conduct was ‘objectively outrageous.’ We agree with the judge, and the Surprise Police Department should do some soul-searching.”
Surprise Police Chief Benny Piña has found himself once again taking wide criticism stemming from the arrest of a mother who defied the city council while exercising her First Amendment rights. Along with the initial arrest, the Chief is now at the center of a firestorm after an internal department video from a week after the incident was obtained by KFYI’s James T. Harris. The video features Piña giving officers “a few things to avoid when confronted by a 1st Amendment auditor,” and defending the woman’s arrest.
Rebekah Massie, a mother from Surprise, was arrested in front of her 10-year-old daughter after criticizing the Surprise City Attorney Robert Wingo in August in a now-viral video. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently sued the city, and the council eventually reversed the policy that led to her arrest.
In the Surprise Police Department video created a week later, Piña is seen telling officers, “What happened last week in a council meeting resulted in what I think everybody in the world is calling an illegal arrest and a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. That’s clearly not what we’re about, and that’s not what happened.”
Curiously, the Chief advised officers not to be completely open or truthful to what he called “First Amendment Auditors.” “[There are a] few things to avoid when confronted by a First Amendment auditor,” Piña said.
Piña introduced Sgt. Jamie Rothschild and suggested that the criticisms against him and the department are the work of “trolls and bots.” He responded to calls to fire Steve Shernicoff, the arresting officer.
The Chief told officers, “We took action that night to complete what we normally would do which is a use of force report. We took real quick action to make certain that we were in line with what our policy is and what our philosophy is, which is to take next steps to make certain that we were in a position of power to show that we, specifically Officer Shernicoff, acted with absolute speed to carry out the mission as directed that evening.”
He added, “When something doesn’t look right, or something doesn’t look popular, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
Footage of the meeting and of Massie being led out as her child cried quickly went viral within days of the arrest. Bodycam footage was later released by Surprise PD.
The footage shows that Piña was present during the arrest and did not intervene. Massie was charged with trespassing, resisting arrest, and obstructing government operations. Following the uproar in response to the incident, State Senator John Kavanaugh publicly called for Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate the arrest.
“In Arizona statutes, we have a provision that specifically says, ‘[a] public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body,’” said Kavanagh.
“Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy. Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”
AZ Free News has reached out to Massie via her representation from FIRE for comment. As of this report no response has been received.
The Surprise City Council repealed the ordinance prohibiting residents from criticizing city officials during public meetings in a unanimous vote. The decision followed the now-viral arrest of Rebekah Massie, a local activist, while she addressed the body in August. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently launched a lawsuit against the city, which according to the group is still ongoing.
In an email from FIRE obtained by AZ Free News, the group confirmed that the lawsuit is moving forward. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement, “The city council’s decision to scrap its unconstitutional rule banning criticism of public officials is the right move — but the damage has already been done. Twenty-eight days ago, police dragged a local mom out of the meeting for criticizing a city attorney’s pay. Twenty-eight days ago, Mayor Skip Hall abused his power to stifle dissent. This decision comes 28 days too late for Rebekah Massie.”
Cameron Arcand, writing for the Arizona Daily Independent, reported that the effort to end the policy was led by Surprise Councilman Jack Hastings. Earlier this week, the councilman posted to X, “On Tuesday, at our next City Council Meeting, I will make a motion and/or vote to remove the rule that prohibits complaints against elected officials and city staff members during the public comment portion of our meetings,” adding “I support the freedom of speech and people should be able to voice their concerns and criticize their government and elected officials.”
On Tuesday, at our next City Council Meeting, I will make a motion and/or vote to remove the rule that prohibits complaints against elected officials and city staff members during the public comment portion of our meetings.
I support the freedom of speech and people should be…
“I’m hoping it passes unanimously because it’s the right thing to do. You have to be able to deal with criticism if you’re going to be an elected official,” Hastings told the Center Square via text.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the lawsuit targeting the city, outgoing Mayor Skip Hall, and Surprise police officer Steven Shernicoff in their individual capacities, was filed September 3rd and is seeking “preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the City of Surprise from enforcing the Council Criticism Policy during meetings of the City Council of the City of Surprise;” which may be rendered moot by the policy change, as well as a declaratory judgment that the city’s “enforcement of the Council Criticism Policy against Massie on August 20, 2024, violated Massie’s First Amendment rights;” and a declaratory judgment that the policy violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finally, Massie is seeking “compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages,” for her arrest as well as legal fees.
City of Surprise: We'll see you in court.
The First Amendment protects Americans' right to criticize public officials without being arrested. https://t.co/Ii6D2dJ4v8
At the time of Massie’s arrest, Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor who is set to replace Hall condemned the mayor’s actions saying, “As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable.” He added, “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
“The right to free speech is at the heart of our democracy, and as your next mayor, I will ensure that every citizen’s voice is heard, respected, and protected,” Sartor continued. “While there must be reasonable limits on speech in public forums—such as prohibiting violence, threats, or profanity—this recent incident did not come close to crossing those lines. As mayor, I will ensure that our city is a place where open dialogue is encouraged, not suppressed. We are stronger when every voice is heard.”
